The Leveson inquiry into press standards is taking a well-earned break. The past three months have been notable for the powerful, sometimes searing, testimony of people whose voice is seldom, if ever, heard – the victims of press intrusion. For any journalist it has been deeply uncomfortable to watch witnesses such as the McCanns, the Dowlers, Christopher Jefferies, Anne Diamond and Sienna Miller tell how their lives had been touched – even nearly wrecked – by a cynical disregard for suffering, privacy or the truth. This was testimony which should be shown as part of every student journalism ethics course.

Every walk of life has its Panglossians and there are some journalists who nevertheless wonder what all the fuss is about. "Only" 800 proven victims of hacking? No certain proof of voicemail deletions? But they are in the minority and Lord Justice Leveson himself has made it plain that he has heard ample evidence to justify widespread concerns about the destructive behaviour of a number of journalists who were, for a while, literally out of control.

The great majority of newspaper editors and managements can see the need for urgent change and are, indeed, already at work with Lord Hunt, the new chair of the Press Complaints Commission, to propose long overdue reforms to the structure, nature and effectiveness of press regulation. What emerges may well be more independent of the paymasters and should have the sort of investigatory powers and sanctions that the old PCC so fatally lacked. Whether this new template will satisfy Lord Justice Leveson's team remains to be seen, but it is a sign that the overwhelming majority of the industry can see the need for change.

That the Leveson inquiry has not been more full of surprises hitherto is down to the fact that there was such thorough and accurate reporting of the story in advance and from numerous civil court actions. Doubt has lately been raised about one key aspect of one story – whether News of the World journalists deleted the voice messages that gave Milly Dowler's parents false hope that their daughter might still be alive. We should have qualified our original reporting with an additional four words: "Reliable sources claim that." This would have been an accurate statement of the unchallenged position at the time, as opposed to the assertion of a fact that has, five months later, been questioned, if not actually disproved or denied. We doubt whether the inclusion of those words would have changed much. But not to have qualified the statement in this way was an error that we regret. In most respects the original reporting (by us and others), if anything, understated the nature of the journalistic crisis that is now being painfully laid bare. The former chief executive of News International, Rebekah Brooks, chose her own words carefully when she hinted at the real reasons for the NoW's closure: "We have more visibility perhaps with what we can see coming than you guys," she told the staff in July. "I think in a year's time, every single one of you in this room might come up and say 'I see what she saw now'." Bit by bit, we are glimpsing what she meant.

Now that Leveson is in full swing there are two mistakes the press can make. One is denial: that merely exacerbates the threat. An industry which can't see that something went seriously wrong self-evidently can't be trusted with self-regulation. The second mistake is to see Leveson merely as a threat rather than an opportunity. Of course, all journalists are anxious about restrictions that might hinder work which is genuinely in the public interest. But the judge has repeatedly said he is looking for constructive solutions and has no wish to restrict a free press. There may be a historic chance to address some of the hindrances and obstacles which genuinely do chill the press in this country. But that can only be done on the front foot – not from a defensive crouch.